Deposition of Eric E. Ericsson

ERIC E. ERICSSON,
of lawful age, being by me first duly examined, cautioned and solemnly sworn, as hereinafter certified, deposeth and sayeth as follows, to-wit:
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
By W.T. Wilcox.
Q. 1. What is your name, age and residence?
A. My name is Eric Emil Ericsson; and I reside at present in North Platte, Nebraska. It is a little over three years since I came. I have no occupation; I have retired.
Q. 2. How long have you resided in what is now Lincoln County?
A. I came here in June, 1866. I think it was the 8th or 9th day of June, 1866, that I came to Old Fort McPherson.
Q. 3. Have you resided in the territory, which is now Lincoln County, ever since?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 4. How far is Fort McPherson, where you first settled, from the town of North Platte?
A. They call it 18 miles.
Q. 5. Was there a military post at Fort McPherson?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. 6. When was that post abandoned?
A. It was abandoned in 1880, to my best recollection.
Q. 7. Are you acquainted with W.F. Cody, the plaintiff in this case, and Louisa Cody, his wife? If so, when did you first become acquainted with them?
A. I first became acquainted with Cody in December, 1859 or in June. But she did not get there for several months after. I could not tell exactly.
Q. 8. After Mrs. Cody came to Fort McPherson, where did they reside, with reference to where you were living?
-21-
A. They lived right in the post, and I lived about a quarter of a mile west of the garrison. He was employed by the government, so he lived in there.
A. 9. About how long did Mrs. Cody continue to reside at Fort McPherson?
A. Well, I do not recollect it exactly but it was until about 1873 or 1874; I am not sure which. About ’73 to the best of my recollection, they went away.
Q. 10. And they moved to North Platte, did they?
A. She went east to the best of my recollection; to Rochester, N.Y.
Q. 11. During the time that she resided at Fort McPherson, what are the facts as to whether or not you visited at her home, and she visited at yours, during those years?
A. Well, I was at their house, and I think she was at our house too, but not very often.
Q. 12. Was W.F. Cody at home, all of the time, or a portion of the years only?
A. Only a portion. He was away most of the time in the summer.
Q. 13. During the time that he would be at Fort McPherson during these years, what were his habits, with reference to drinking?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. He would get under the influence of liquor a good bit.
Q. 14. And where have you seen him under the influence of liquor in those days?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I have seen him under the influence of liquor both at Fort McPherson and North Platte.
Q. 15. And whereabouts in North Platte have you seen him under the influence of liquor, if nay place?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
-22-
A. Up here, when Grady kept a saloon. He called several of us in and he got so under the influence of liquor, that we had to help him out.
Q. 16. To what extent have you seen him at different times, in those days, under the influence of liquor?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I could not tell; he was not drunk all the time; once in a while, when they came home from their trips, he generally got on a spree.
Q. 17. Do you know what his reputation was at that time, in those days, with reference to running with immoral women, and visiting houses of ill repute?
A. I do not know from personal knowledge.
Q. 18. Do you know what other people said?
A. Yes I heard from outsiders.
Q. 19. What was his reputation at that time with reference to running with immoral women and visiting places of ill repute?
Plaintiff objects to same as immaterial, under the issues as shown by the pleadings in this case, and for the further reason no proper foundation laid, showing witness competent to testify as to the reputation; and for the further reason that it is hearsay and incompetent.
A. He was accused of doing that. From hearsay, is all I know.
Q. 20. Do you know, Mr. Ericsson, with reference to Mrs. Cody doing work for other people, in order to support herself and babies?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I heard that reported.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay.
Q. 21. Do you know whether or not she did sewing for other people?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
-23-
A. I do not know from my own knowledge; only from talk. I heard she done sewing.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and incompetent.
Q. 22. State, if you know, what the report was at that time with reference to Mrs. Cody not being able to purchase on credit at Suttler’s stores that were there?
Objected to as immaterial, and for the further reason that the same is hearsay testimony and incompetent.
A. I heard that reported that she was. That is all I know.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and being incompetent.
Q. 23. What did you observe at that time, if anything, with reference to Mrs. Cody, in being a good wife and kind mother?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial, and for the further reason that it calls for a conclusion and observation in the witness mind and opinion, and incompetent.
A. There was nothing wrong, that I heard.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and being incompetent.
Q. 24. Have you been acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Cody ever since you first got acquainted with them?
A. Yes, I have seen them off and on right along.
Q. 25. Have you observed anything in their conduct, when together, indicating that Mrs. Cody did not treat her husband as a wife should?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial, and for the further reason that it calls for an opinion and conclusion of the witness; mind and being incompetent.
A. No.
-24-
Q. 26. Do you know, Mr. Ericsson, whether or not, in those days, that you were acquainted with Col. Cody at Fort McPherson, that he paid his obligations?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial, having no bearing on the issues in the case.
A. He was accused of not doing that.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and incompetent.
Q. 27. Have you any personal knowledge as to whether he paid his obligations or not?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I have.
Q. 28. You may state what you know about it.
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. He did not pay me.
Q. 29. How much did he owe you?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. Oh, somewhere in the neighborhood of $700.00.
Q. 30. Do you know who bought what little furniture they had in their house, when they left Fort McPherson?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. Oh, he turned it over to me, to make part payment. I got several articles, such as table, stove and chairs, to pay on the debt he owed me.
Q. 31. When did he pay the balance that was due after he turned over the furniture?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. We had to compromise it. He sent me $250.00, if I would take that and give up the note, and he sent that from Springfield, Mass.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as not responsive.
-25-
Q. 32. And how long was that after he moved away from Fort McPherson?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. It was over about a year. I think I have got the letter yet. I can’t say the date exactly.
Q. 33. How much were you required to throw off in order to get the $250.00?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. Well, I had one note for $350.00 and then there was an account that we had separate from that; so after figuring it all up, what I lost was between five and seven hundred dollars, something like that.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
By H.S. Ridgely.
Q. 34. Col. Cody was always able, when at Fort McPherson, to perform the duties incumbent upon him, by the government, was he not?
A> I never heard any complaint.
Q. 35. You never knew him, because of drinking, to be unable to take out parties to go scouting and to go out with the troops?
A. No.
Q. 36. He was a scout at that time, was he not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 37. And was the chief of the scouts?
A. I believe that was the talk.
Q. 38. And he never was court martialed or censured by the government for his drinking, when in the employ of the U.S. Government, as chief of scouts, was he?
A. Not that I heard.
Q. 39. The drinking that you had reference to is when he would come in off of a hard scouting trip, or after being out with the army, and the officers and he would go and have a little drinking spree, is not that true?
-26-
A. Yes.
Q. 40. What you have testified to, in reference to the plaintiff having immoral relations with immoral women, is what you have heard, not what you know yourself?
A. All I know is what I have heard.
Q. 41. Now, you say that the plaintiff was not known with favor, for paying his bills at that time?
A. No, he did not pay his bills.
Q. 42. Who else had bills against him at that time, that were not paid?
A. Different parties, Dan Burke was one; and several others.
Q. 43. You had a bill personally against Cody that was not paid?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 44. Was there some dispute between you and Cody as to the amount?
A. No, he never disputed the amount. He had a partner, Charlie Von Berg, at that time.
Q. 45. And the indebtedness to yourself of Cody accrued out of some partnership arrangement he had where he thought he got the worst of the deal, on account of his partnership with him?
A. It was no partnership transaction to begin with. He came to me and hired my teams and I signed a bill of goods for something like $850 or $900.00. He hired my teams to haul those goods out to follow the command, and when they got out on the Republican they got into battles, and when they got to Julesburg they stopped but I never got no work for my teams.
Q. 46. You say he paid the matter about a year afterwards, did you not?
A. He paid part of it right along, but he gave me a note for $350, and then he got some more, and I got some horses from him.
Q. 47. And about a year afterwards, you and he compromised on the note you speak of?
A. It was several years after.
-27-
Q. 48. Was it within four or five years?
A. About two years, I think.
Q. 49. About two years after you and Cody compromised the matter and paid you in full under the agreement of compromise?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 50. And you say all this time, he was paying along on the account?
A. Yes. He never disputed it until the last time, and then he turned the blame on Charlie Von Berg.
Q. 51. He was paying along and finally after two years, you and he compromised and settled it up, as any honest man would?
A. yes.
Q. 52. Is it not true that he paid all his old bills at Fort McPherson?
A. Yes he did pay his bills after he started the theater business and show.
Q. 53. He left Fort McPherson, did he not, to enter into the theater business?
A. Yes sir, after his office as guide was abolished.
Q. 54. And when you speak of his leaving you some furniture, he was then going into the theater business to make money?
A. Yes.
Q. 55. But after he was in that business for two or three years, he got his old bills all straightened out, did he not?
A. I do not know as he got them all straightened out. He straightened some out.
Q. 56. That was his furniture he turned over to you, to apply on the indebtedness?
A. Yes.
Q. 57. He had a perfect right to turn it over, did he not?
A. Yes.
-28-
Q. 58. And you accepted it?
A. Yes, it was in his house.
Q. 59. Cody always bore a high reputation as being a good scout, did he not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 60. And he was entrusted with important commands to go on the frontier to fight the Indians?
A. Yes, all spoke well of him.
Q. 61. What you have testified to in reference to his wife not having credit in the Suttler’s stores, is hearsay on your part, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. 62. So far as you knew, Cody was good to his family at Fort McPherson, was he not?
A. I did not hear anything. I did not hear that he had any family trouble. They said he was neglectful of the necessities of life. That he did not furnish them with proper provisions.
Q. 63. That was hearsay?
A. Yes.
Q. 64. It was not within your personal knowledge?
A> No, only talk.
Q. 65. What you have testified to in reference to Mrs. Cody taking in sewing, was also hearsay, was it not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 66. Cody was a poor man at that time, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. 67. You are now acquainted with Mrs. Cody?
A. Yes.
Q. 68. She was a poor woman at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. 69. She is regarded as one of the best fixed women in the city now, financially, is she not?
A. Yes, I believe so.
-29-
Q. 70. And what she has got, is what Col. Cody, her husband, has given her?
A. Yes.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.
By W.T. WILCOX.
Q. 71. Mrs. Cody has always been a very industrious, economical and hard-working woman, has she not?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial and not part of the issues; having no bearing upon the issues made up by the pleadings in this case.
A. As far as I know, I have not heard any complaint about her in that way.
Q. 72. Do you know whether the Colonel has given her the money which she now has invested in property, or whether she has earned quite a good deal of that herself?
A. I do not kjnow how that is.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.
By H.S. RIDGELY.
Q. 73. You know that Mrs. Cody has no, in the long number of years that you have known her, worked at any employment, or received from any one, other than Col. Cody, any money or property, and the work that she has done has not been of the nature to accumulate any of the property she has got?
A. Not to my knowledge.
-30-

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

ERIC E. ERICSSON,
of lawful age, being by me first duly examined, cautioned and solemnly sworn, as hereinafter certified, deposeth and sayeth as follows, to-wit:
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
By W.T. Wilcox.
Q. 1. What is your name, age and residence?
A. My name is Eric Emil Ericsson; and I reside at present in North Platte, Nebraska. It is a little over three years since I came. I have no occupation; I have retired.
Q. 2. How long have you resided in what is now Lincoln County?
A. I came here in June, 1866. I think it was the 8th or 9th day of June, 1866, that I came to Old Fort McPherson.
Q. 3. Have you resided in the territory, which is now Lincoln County, ever since?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 4. How far is Fort McPherson, where you first settled, from the town of North Platte?
A. They call it 18 miles.
Q. 5. Was there a military post at Fort McPherson?
A. Yes, there was.
Q. 6. When was that post abandoned?
A. It was abandoned in 1880, to my best recollection.
Q. 7. Are you acquainted with W.F. Cody, the plaintiff in this case, and Louisa Cody, his wife? If so, when did you first become acquainted with them?
A. I first became acquainted with Cody in December, 1859 or in June. But she did not get there for several months after. I could not tell exactly.
Q. 8. After Mrs. Cody came to Fort McPherson, where did they reside, with reference to where you were living?
-21-
A. They lived right in the post, and I lived about a quarter of a mile west of the garrison. He was employed by the government, so he lived in there.
A. 9. About how long did Mrs. Cody continue to reside at Fort McPherson?
A. Well, I do not recollect it exactly but it was until about 1873 or 1874; I am not sure which. About ’73 to the best of my recollection, they went away.
Q. 10. And they moved to North Platte, did they?
A. She went east to the best of my recollection; to Rochester, N.Y.
Q. 11. During the time that she resided at Fort McPherson, what are the facts as to whether or not you visited at her home, and she visited at yours, during those years?
A. Well, I was at their house, and I think she was at our house too, but not very often.
Q. 12. Was W.F. Cody at home, all of the time, or a portion of the years only?
A. Only a portion. He was away most of the time in the summer.
Q. 13. During the time that he would be at Fort McPherson during these years, what were his habits, with reference to drinking?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. He would get under the influence of liquor a good bit.
Q. 14. And where have you seen him under the influence of liquor in those days?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I have seen him under the influence of liquor both at Fort McPherson and North Platte.
Q. 15. And whereabouts in North Platte have you seen him under the influence of liquor, if nay place?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
-22-
A. Up here, when Grady kept a saloon. He called several of us in and he got so under the influence of liquor, that we had to help him out.
Q. 16. To what extent have you seen him at different times, in those days, under the influence of liquor?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I could not tell; he was not drunk all the time; once in a while, when they came home from their trips, he generally got on a spree.
Q. 17. Do you know what his reputation was at that time, in those days, with reference to running with immoral women, and visiting houses of ill repute?
A. I do not know from personal knowledge.
Q. 18. Do you know what other people said?
A. Yes I heard from outsiders.
Q. 19. What was his reputation at that time with reference to running with immoral women and visiting places of ill repute?
Plaintiff objects to same as immaterial, under the issues as shown by the pleadings in this case, and for the further reason no proper foundation laid, showing witness competent to testify as to the reputation; and for the further reason that it is hearsay and incompetent.
A. He was accused of doing that. From hearsay, is all I know.
Q. 20. Do you know, Mr. Ericsson, with reference to Mrs. Cody doing work for other people, in order to support herself and babies?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I heard that reported.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay.
Q. 21. Do you know whether or not she did sewing for other people?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
-23-
A. I do not know from my own knowledge; only from talk. I heard she done sewing.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and incompetent.
Q. 22. State, if you know, what the report was at that time with reference to Mrs. Cody not being able to purchase on credit at Suttler’s stores that were there?
Objected to as immaterial, and for the further reason that the same is hearsay testimony and incompetent.
A. I heard that reported that she was. That is all I know.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and being incompetent.
Q. 23. What did you observe at that time, if anything, with reference to Mrs. Cody, in being a good wife and kind mother?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial, and for the further reason that it calls for a conclusion and observation in the witness mind and opinion, and incompetent.
A. There was nothing wrong, that I heard.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and being incompetent.
Q. 24. Have you been acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Cody ever since you first got acquainted with them?
A. Yes, I have seen them off and on right along.
Q. 25. Have you observed anything in their conduct, when together, indicating that Mrs. Cody did not treat her husband as a wife should?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial, and for the further reason that it calls for an opinion and conclusion of the witness; mind and being incompetent.
A. No.
-24-
Q. 26. Do you know, Mr. Ericsson, whether or not, in those days, that you were acquainted with Col. Cody at Fort McPherson, that he paid his obligations?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial, having no bearing on the issues in the case.
A. He was accused of not doing that.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as hearsay and incompetent.
Q. 27. Have you any personal knowledge as to whether he paid his obligations or not?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. I have.
Q. 28. You may state what you know about it.
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. He did not pay me.
Q. 29. How much did he owe you?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. Oh, somewhere in the neighborhood of $700.00.
Q. 30. Do you know who bought what little furniture they had in their house, when they left Fort McPherson?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. Oh, he turned it over to me, to make part payment. I got several articles, such as table, stove and chairs, to pay on the debt he owed me.
Q. 31. When did he pay the balance that was due after he turned over the furniture?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. We had to compromise it. He sent me $250.00, if I would take that and give up the note, and he sent that from Springfield, Mass.
Plaintiff moves to strike out the answer as not responsive.
-25-
Q. 32. And how long was that after he moved away from Fort McPherson?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. It was over about a year. I think I have got the letter yet. I can’t say the date exactly.
Q. 33. How much were you required to throw off in order to get the $250.00?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial.
A. Well, I had one note for $350.00 and then there was an account that we had separate from that; so after figuring it all up, what I lost was between five and seven hundred dollars, something like that.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
By H.S. Ridgely.
Q. 34. Col. Cody was always able, when at Fort McPherson, to perform the duties incumbent upon him, by the government, was he not?
A> I never heard any complaint.
Q. 35. You never knew him, because of drinking, to be unable to take out parties to go scouting and to go out with the troops?
A. No.
Q. 36. He was a scout at that time, was he not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 37. And was the chief of the scouts?
A. I believe that was the talk.
Q. 38. And he never was court martialed or censured by the government for his drinking, when in the employ of the U.S. Government, as chief of scouts, was he?
A. Not that I heard.
Q. 39. The drinking that you had reference to is when he would come in off of a hard scouting trip, or after being out with the army, and the officers and he would go and have a little drinking spree, is not that true?
-26-
A. Yes.
Q. 40. What you have testified to, in reference to the plaintiff having immoral relations with immoral women, is what you have heard, not what you know yourself?
A. All I know is what I have heard.
Q. 41. Now, you say that the plaintiff was not known with favor, for paying his bills at that time?
A. No, he did not pay his bills.
Q. 42. Who else had bills against him at that time, that were not paid?
A. Different parties, Dan Burke was one; and several others.
Q. 43. You had a bill personally against Cody that was not paid?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 44. Was there some dispute between you and Cody as to the amount?
A. No, he never disputed the amount. He had a partner, Charlie Von Berg, at that time.
Q. 45. And the indebtedness to yourself of Cody accrued out of some partnership arrangement he had where he thought he got the worst of the deal, on account of his partnership with him?
A. It was no partnership transaction to begin with. He came to me and hired my teams and I signed a bill of goods for something like $850 or $900.00. He hired my teams to haul those goods out to follow the command, and when they got out on the Republican they got into battles, and when they got to Julesburg they stopped but I never got no work for my teams.
Q. 46. You say he paid the matter about a year afterwards, did you not?
A. He paid part of it right along, but he gave me a note for $350, and then he got some more, and I got some horses from him.
Q. 47. And about a year afterwards, you and he compromised on the note you speak of?
A. It was several years after.
-27-
Q. 48. Was it within four or five years?
A. About two years, I think.
Q. 49. About two years after you and Cody compromised the matter and paid you in full under the agreement of compromise?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 50. And you say all this time, he was paying along on the account?
A. Yes. He never disputed it until the last time, and then he turned the blame on Charlie Von Berg.
Q. 51. He was paying along and finally after two years, you and he compromised and settled it up, as any honest man would?
A. yes.
Q. 52. Is it not true that he paid all his old bills at Fort McPherson?
A. Yes he did pay his bills after he started the theater business and show.
Q. 53. He left Fort McPherson, did he not, to enter into the theater business?
A. Yes sir, after his office as guide was abolished.
Q. 54. And when you speak of his leaving you some furniture, he was then going into the theater business to make money?
A. Yes.
Q. 55. But after he was in that business for two or three years, he got his old bills all straightened out, did he not?
A. I do not know as he got them all straightened out. He straightened some out.
Q. 56. That was his furniture he turned over to you, to apply on the indebtedness?
A. Yes.
Q. 57. He had a perfect right to turn it over, did he not?
A. Yes.
-28-
Q. 58. And you accepted it?
A. Yes, it was in his house.
Q. 59. Cody always bore a high reputation as being a good scout, did he not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 60. And he was entrusted with important commands to go on the frontier to fight the Indians?
A. Yes, all spoke well of him.
Q. 61. What you have testified to in reference to his wife not having credit in the Suttler’s stores, is hearsay on your part, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. 62. So far as you knew, Cody was good to his family at Fort McPherson, was he not?
A. I did not hear anything. I did not hear that he had any family trouble. They said he was neglectful of the necessities of life. That he did not furnish them with proper provisions.
Q. 63. That was hearsay?
A. Yes.
Q. 64. It was not within your personal knowledge?
A> No, only talk.
Q. 65. What you have testified to in reference to Mrs. Cody taking in sewing, was also hearsay, was it not?
A. Yes sir.
Q. 66. Cody was a poor man at that time, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. 67. You are now acquainted with Mrs. Cody?
A. Yes.
Q. 68. She was a poor woman at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. 69. She is regarded as one of the best fixed women in the city now, financially, is she not?
A. Yes, I believe so.
-29-
Q. 70. And what she has got, is what Col. Cody, her husband, has given her?
A. Yes.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.
By W.T. WILCOX.
Q. 71. Mrs. Cody has always been a very industrious, economical and hard-working woman, has she not?
Plaintiff objects as immaterial and not part of the issues; having no bearing upon the issues made up by the pleadings in this case.
A. As far as I know, I have not heard any complaint about her in that way.
Q. 72. Do you know whether the Colonel has given her the money which she now has invested in property, or whether she has earned quite a good deal of that herself?
A. I do not kjnow how that is.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.
By H.S. RIDGELY.
Q. 73. You know that Mrs. Cody has no, in the long number of years that you have known her, worked at any employment, or received from any one, other than Col. Cody, any money or property, and the work that she has done has not been of the nature to accumulate any of the property she has got?
A. Not to my knowledge.
-30-